DR. MIKE HEISER, PhD in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages from Univ of Wisconsin, prior to which he earned an M.A. in Ancient History from Univ of PA. Mike's other interests include paranormal and occult religions and Western Esotericism. He is particularly interested in how these worldviews and traditions have historically drawn on biblical and ancient Near Eastern material and, in turn, influenced biblical interpretation on the popular level. He is particularly known for his critiques of "para babble" and inside-the-box religious thinking.
Q: We particularly want to bend your mind on the subject of panspermia, which has been in these conversations at the Royal Society and in the news lately. To start with, just to this avalanche of recent news addressing if we are alone in the universe, what can you tell us about what's been going on with these meetings and your thoughts about them?
A: Part of me wants to look at this and say: this is the definition of the word 'bluster,' because there's nothing new here in terms of the content. But, on the other hand, about the only thing that's really new is the number of credentialed people - scientists - who are willing to get on this band wagon and promote this idea. It never really ceases to amaze me how scientists, who make their livings by being rational, come out with really outlandish claims on the basis of no evidence at all [I couldn't agree more] and really not a whole lot of reason. The real importance of it is the psychology of it for the public. I do believe there is a greater intelligence; I'm not talking now about God, but the 'other side' here, which is out to manipulate the public, wants to expand, reinforce, and maintain certain ideas in the minds of people, about who we are and how we got here - and really big theological questions. So, the meetings have real importance in the sense of moving the big paradigm of thought in a certain way.
Q: So it's raising the legitimacy of the conversation?
A: I think that, but even more I'm one who believes that it doesn't matter if there ever really is ET life - because I think the idea will be put forth in the mainstream, whether it's real or not. I'm more interested in why the idea is out there, how useful it is, what its place is in a larger agenda, what role it will play in molding people's beliefs - really turning them away from anything that we would call traditional theism and the Judaeo-Christian worldview, and of Christianity in particular. I don't think it matters whether they come up with evidence or not, and I think there will be certain things in my lifetime that are latched onto, that are offered as proof - even though, to date, not a single life form at any level, microbial on up, has been discovered either on earth or in space. What you have are the components of life, but any scientist will tell you that the components of life are easy to get in a lab; creating life is something altogether different. So you take the lack of ability to even create life in a lab, and then you take it out into space, it's so far from being actually established -- I have to look at it and wonder why they aren't speaking rationally at this point. I really think it's a religious thing. I think they want so badly to believe in this to justify their scientific work that they're willing to overlook the obvious. Despite that there's never a shred of proof, they always say it's just around the corner, like the Cubs winning the World Series. I think that eventually they'll offer something that, under real scrutiny - like all the 'missing links' in evolution theory - and then it will be the plaything for panspermia in the scientific community. And it will succeed in shifting the way people think and talk about origins. I'm more interested in that aspect, and I think it really will occur soon. That to me is more important ... in how it molds people's belief systems. Rather than being able to prove ETs.
Q: They landed a probe this year on Mars, and they actually made the comment that they had found life. I haven't heard anything about it since.
A: You find the conditions for life, but you haven't discovered an actual life form. It's always: "well, maybe they're locked in the ice, or at one time in the past the conditions would have been just right." But none is ever actually found. It's always the table setting and never the meal.
Q: Is part of that because of the limits thus far of our technological advancement?
A: But that just moves you to the next question. Let's just say that they find organisms that are similar or identical to organisms on earth, that are not carbon based, but live in one of these extreme environments. Well, the next question is, did these here on earth come from space? How would you ever hope to prove that? There's one school of panspermia that's considered a little more extreme, that actually postulates that life existed everywhere, from the very beginning, in the entire universe. Okay, so let's just say that this might be the case, that this might be the stuff of creation; obviously an atheist won't refer to like that. But you can have two things occurring at widely disparate points, and that's the factual point, let's say Life form A and Life form B, and they're sure a lot alike. But to make the leap, then, that A was caused by B - those are entirely different questions, and quite beyond the discovery of an ET. Nevertheless, you can imagine if you had that situation, people would extrapolate that baby to death. And it will really impact the way the public thinks about its own point of origin.
Q: You mentioned Frank Drake [and his Drake Equation]. I've always been a little confused about how one camp can take his equation and say it's a very hopeful idea, and other people look at it and say it's a mathematical impossibility.
A: I actually just recently blogged about the Drake Equation. This was an equation that came up with a way to say how many potential worlds there might be out there that we might be able to make contact with; the end result [potential planets with life] of that was 10 - NOT 10,000, as many say. And scientists have actually gone back to the Drake Equation, using all the additional knowledge we have now, and the new estimate is now 2.1. So there's possibly two galaxies out there that we could communicate with. It's incredible that this equation is what generates all this optimism and enthusiasm. Most scientists actually even consider the odds worse than that, because every single component of the equation itself is nothing more than a GUESS. Many people call it absolutely worthless for anything at all, and I'm inclined to agree with that. But it has become like a creed, in the ET life community, a point of dogma.
Q: Do you think there are any new approaches to astrobiology that could be game changers? In the last two years there has been something like 400 extra solar planets found. Do you think that kind of approach to space exploration, or the attempt to try to find a habitable world in a better method than the Drake Equation - or even SETI, for that matter, just sending signals out into the middle of space?
A: SETI has been a total failure. It seems to me like if you're able scientifically to assess some of the things that you just mentioned, then it might make more sense to put the resources into those [things you mentioned]. And why not put the resources into a manned mission to Mars? You get these people who get older, and they want to validate their professional lives, for the positions they've taken. They get a little bit blinded by the wish to be shown correct. I do think we'd be better off putting the resources into something else than these old entrenched things like SETI and the Drake Equation.
Q: One professor at the Royal Society meeting said: "New evidence from astrobiology overwhelmingly supports the view that life was seeded from outside earth when microbes were deposited on this planet approximately 3.8 million years ago." Any response to that?
A: Panspermia, in its simplest definition, is the idea that life was seeded from space; once those building blocks were deposited here and came together in evolution, then voila! Life. There are two major types [schools of thought re: panspermia] : 1) directed (by God or ETs), and 2)undirected (random). Now, the scientist you refer to has been around for years. He was an early proponent of panspermia and for many years he was practically the only person pushing the idea. I would say to him, because I've read his material: show me the life form. All that he's got is 'overwhelming evidence' ... in other words, he has nothing. But he has more places to look. The other thing he has is, there have been new ideas put forth as to the viability of mechanism, i.e., how it could get to earth. But, again, all we have is more ideas. So I don't know how that adds up to 'overwhelming evidence.' It adds up to, "Hey, there's more here to think about." If you are trying to push the idea, you really believe in it like he does, then you're going to use a little bit of hyperbole. Even if you found a life form here that matches a life form out in space, how do you argue coherently and successfully, scientifically, that one is the result of the other?
Q: And speaking of hyperbole, there have been several grandiose statements that seem to be in contrast to the idea that we're talking about a society of scientists. Some of these guys are peer-reviewed scientists, using language as if we have unprecedented evidence of ET intelligence...overwhelmingly support.
A: Here are the facts [they say]: it can now be peer-reviewed by scientists out of our little community of cheerleaders.
Q: It is an interesting time we're living in, because so many of these Royal Scientists..it's almost like we're seeing a new age of enlightenment or an intellectual movement, when so many from different disciplines talk about this as a matter of faith, almost like a statement of religious persuasion. And it seems to have occurred rather rapidly.
A: I think the rapidity of it is a little bit mythical, and here's what I mean. The church has been thinking about this question for centuries. If you're living in an age where knowledge can't be disseminated quickly, who's going to hear about it? It's not like this question is new, but the rapidity... and it give you the feel - and I think it's more than a feel...I think it's real - that you're starting to get this critical mass of so many people at the same time entering the discussion and thinking about the question. And that works two ways; it motivates the scientific community, the public, philosophers, theologians, and it snowballs. But the question is very old, in the church.
Q: My second question about panspermia stems from the idea [he names some professor] that seeding the earth with life is not just an option, it's a moral obligation. This would be in reference to directed panspermia, like we as humans have a purpose to propagate life, to transfer our microbial seed from earth and to seed the universe with it.
A: It's interesting on two levels because, on the one hand - I don't know if he's a Christian, but if he was a Christian I would not be surprised by that thinking, because life is a gift from God. I don't know if I would go so far as to say we have a moral imperative, because I don't see any scriptural basis to do that, but the thinking is consistent. If he's not a Christian it's, at the very least, ironic that he's talking about a moral imperative to do anything. Where would the moral imperative come from?
Q: Planetary scientists are announcing that maybe on the 9th moon of Saturn or Europa, that there is sub-crustal liquid - oceans - and they seem to be indicating traces of hydrocarbons, etc. that makes him think that life might exist there. There's been a theory developed, at least by Dr. Walt Brown in his book, that the earth also once had a sub-crustal ocean, and that during the great flood when the earth's crust was ruptured, the great seas of the deep broke up; and that it released this inner ocean with its water and mud, and that a part of it could have escaped into space and carried microbes from the earth to another planet(s), and that if we ever actually find microbial life there it's as least as good a theory as anything else to say that it actually originated on earth.
A: I'm familiar with the theory that it works both ways, and in general, that is a valid observation because one of the problems with panspermia is mechanism [how to deliver it between planets]. And who is to say that if you find life elsewhere, it didn't come from earth? Because it's really the same question -- the same 'mechanism' issue or problem. And frankly, the mechanisms that are used to get life here on earth, can equally be used to transfer life. So I'm in general agreement. There's no reason to say it could only happen one way.
Q: I'm somewhat suspicious that Guy Cosmonalco [Vatican astronomer], who wrote his booklet, Intelligent Life in the Universe... because he had said in one interview that he was working on his next project, which he called 'a mind bending concept,'... that he was referring to was the "Jesus seed" theory. And because he had said this in the context of astrobiology, or even how life might migrate from one place to the other, I found this directed panspermia theory kind of echoing some of what I --- as I'm reading between the lines, some of what he is saying, I think - is that what God did, and God does, is use panspermia to spread life throughout the universe, and that maybe it started on the earth, or maybe somewhere else. We'll have to wait and see what he actually says in the book.
A: The Jesus seed idea is not new. C.S. Lewis - I mean it's just not new to have life on other planets - and his Jesus seed theory actually goes even farther than that, God seeding life on other planets the same way, same process, each time. And he'll even say things like, there will be a Jesus on every one of these planets to redeem..that's C.S. Lewis, who got the idea from his predecessor (name?). I think that's one of those quirky Catholic things that they feel somehow compelled to link the idea of multiple redeemers to this whole ET question. I've blogged plenty of this on my UFO blog. www.drmsh.com is my main website, and across the top are links to my other websites and blogs, and one of those is www.uforeligions.com
Q: All these recent comments from Fr. Gabriel Funes (before him Cosmonolgo, and before that Msgr Balducci, who said ET is already here, and that people at the highest levels of the Vatican are aware of it)...and before him Malachi Martin, saying that we're nearer now than ever to disclosure - and that it will not challenge the authority of the Church, won't unhinge the doctrine of Christ. What is your response to what has been happening here?
A: My response is the same. I don't really care what authority figure it is. Show me the proof. Show me the ET. Frankly I think Balducci is not a very clear thinker. There are things that he affirms in a theological sort of way about ETs - I have quotes from Balducci - and from Theosophy and pagan occult religions that are just WORD FOR WORD the same. I asked Balducci how he could affirm this and still affirm his faith, his position in the church? Because where these ideas lead are antithetical to Catholic doctrine. And you don't have to be Catholic; if you're talking about the deity of Christ, the godhead, these fundamental ideas. So, either he has not thought that through very well at all, or maybe the question hasn't even occurred to him. I just do not think he's a clear thinker. But I won't say he didn't say that, or even that he didn't hear that from someone else. When that day comes that the church actually endorses that position, then I'll pay more attention.
Q: But the Church has not rebuked or repudiated him. Why is the Vatican publicly positioning itself in this way? A conspiracy might say it's because they know something we don't. Others say it really comes down to them positioning their authority over the laity just in case.
A: I think they're scared. I think they have a tremendous amount to lose if they're not prepared with a coherent response to their parishioners. In view of their past history, they would never recover if they were not laying groundwork before anything like this were ever announced. They would be toast if they were caught completely empty handed with this. I think it would be wise for the Christian evangelical community to do the same thing. Because it could cut both ways. I've done a lot of work, as have others, about what if some of this is really sinister? What if it's demonic? We've been down that road a lot and I think the church, if that's what it turns out to be - the church should be prepared to recognize that. If it's not what that turns out to be, I think we need a more coherent response than lots of 'Jesus-es' running around in black.
Q: That was exactly Chuck Missler's comment two years ago - studies that were funded by the government, and it was suggested that ET intelligence might result in the complete collapse of society. They were making comparisons about how underdeveloped cultures historically collapsed when suddenly they were faced with a far superior one. But, more recent polls show a vast difference now. Most people, including Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, etc., said the ETs would not contradict their faith or change their religious faith. You often lecture on whether Christianity could handle ET reality. What do you think about this change in public opinion?
A: I agree that there has been a profound change. The latest survey on this was led by Ted Peters, and that was the first of these surveys that included self-described evangelicals. And the results are pretty much similar, sort of 'it's fascinating, but it doesn't bother my faith' attitude. Now, the flip side of that is that there are those who say this because they are so theologically ignorant, anyway. I think that's a little cynical, because I am not theologically ignorant, and I do think that what I would call a conservative evangelical Christian would go on without a blip. It would not bother me in the least theologically [this is not necessarily true of most theologians]. I have no theological problem with it. And I'm not one that has lots of 'Jesus-es' running around or appearing to me. This is one of my gripes with the Christian position on this, which is dominated by Catholicism. I think it's actually a good sign that people are thinking this way. But, let me have my own caveat here. I think I would feel better about it if people could articulate why they don't have a problem with it. That would give us a more stable church and a more stable response should something like this actually happen. And I'm not optimistic that a lot of believers can do that. [Nor am I.] A lot of believers can't articulate much more tried and true components of their theology. So, I'm a little apprehensive, not at the idea of ETs, but that if and when it's announced - whether it's true or not - you're going to have people like the "Sitchen-ites" just swoop down on Bible believers, and re-define all the terms and reframe the whole issue; and I am not optimistic that we have an army of believers that are capable of dismissing the very poor argumentation about the ancient astronaut crowd. To me, that is a threat. [This is my biggest concern,too.] So it's not really the idea of ET existing that I am worried about. I'm worried about what will be done with it, and how believers will be victimized by a false framing or articulation of the implications.
______________________END
COMMENTS: I, too, believe the evangelical fundamental churches are absolutely unprepared for any such 'appearance or contact' with ETs. Most know nothing about the subject and are totally unprepared to tell their parishioners the truth - or what to do. This will leave the vast majority of Christians at the mercy of this great delusion and deception. There will be 'contact with ETs.' It's definitely coming, but it will be a staged event, possibly with 'UFOs' [military technology the masses know nothing about], ETs [through holographic technology] ... and it will seem very real. This is definitely in the plans of the demon-infested leaders of this world. What will the ministers do about this if it occurs? Will they have a clue? I don't think so. That is why I am blogging this series of interviews - to prepare as many people as possible with the subject matter.
Royal Heir
Posts
